------------------
"One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor". George Carlin

There are two theories in this case, there are more no doubt, but these are the ones concerned:

1. An omnipotent being created the universe exactly as it is now.

2. Matter suddenly burst into being, formed into all the celstial bodies including earth. On this earth now, life grew out of chemicals and evolved over time, and is still evolving and will not stop.

I, for one, prefer to accept that evolution appears to explain some elements of the world as we know it. I also accept that the term "species" is a man-made term. It does not necessarily follow that "God's creatures breed true to their "kinds" rules out that a "kind" might span several species, as we understand the term. Since chimpanzees share 98% of human DNA, it would seem to imply that even if God doesn't "experiment", he certainly does like to recycle designs that work well.

"Opposable thumbs? Hmmm... I like that. Let's give hands to the apes and monkeys, too. See? Isn't that precious?

Okay! Last batch! Get me some dirt!"

And now a complete nonsequitor: Just before I replied to this thread, I clicked on a "cars.com" ad and it opened in a new window! Now that's a miracle!

--Baloo

------------------
My mind wanders, but don't worry. It's weak and can't get very far.
--Steve Allen
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

Do you see the church involved in government? Not in any official capacity. (The Christan Coalition, ACLU, etc. do not count)

Do you see the church involved in schools? Unless it's a private religious school, no again.

And if there was no such thing as separation of church and state, why is there all the hubub about a District Court judge ruling that there can be no prayer before football games, because it violates Separation of Church and State. Find me somewhere in the US Constitution where it says that the church and the state are one in the same, and I will stand corrected.

------------------
"Give me liberty, or give me death!"
- Patrick Henry

Till then, more thoughts of the founding fathers:

"But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." -- John Adams

"...denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian." -- Ethan Allen

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." -- Benjamin Franklin

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming virtue." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus." -- ibid.

"... but the Bible is such a book of lies and contradictions there is no knowing which part to believe..." -- Thomas Paine

But the most relevant are these:

"No citizen shall be compelled to frequent of support any religious worship or ministry whatsoever..." -- Thomas Jefferson. ("support" would most likely be interpreted to include using taxpayer money to fund religious instruction in schools)

"A professorship of Theology should have no place at our Institution [the University of Virginia]." -- ibid. (Here we see that Jefferson was opposed to the teaching of theology of any kind in the University he helped found.)

Given the context and the statements, I think It's likely safe to say that the founding fathers did not intend for ANY government, federal, state, OR local, to have ANY dealing with religion whatsoever. It's also a pretty strong blow to the popular supposition that the U.S. was founded upon "Christian" ideals.

Me likes!

RW:

Oh, good! Someone admits that it's a bad theory. Now if I can just convince you that it's completely unsalvagable...

Baloo:

"I, for one, do not believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old. If it is, God is a liar."

Uh, wha? I don't have any clue what you're talking about here.

A good theory would explain everything that can be observed pertaining to it, not just some things. It would also make predictions that can be tested. Evolution does neither of these.

Jeff:

"Its just that the government won't be able to support the school that does through aid and subsidies etc."

Do you mean the national government? If so, they have no business supporting the educational system in the first place.

Warped:

"And if there was no such thing as separation of church and state, why is there all the hubub about a District
Court judge ruling that there can be no prayer before football games, because it violates Separation of Church and State"

There's a difference between saying that the government can't support religion and saying that any state-funded institution has to be atheistic. US District Court had no legal authority in such a ruling, anyway, because, as I have said, the National Government has no authority whatsoever over the educational system. The case should have stopped at the state level.

------------------
"...when all that is driving my heart forward
is you, thoughts of you, hopes for you,
and a fading dream with a Mona Lisa smile
that whispers "are you thinking of me too?"

41 days till the dreams become reality...

You know, some days go by where I simply have to lean my head out the window and roar at oncoming traffic all the way down the freeway. This is apparently one of those days. Between people apparently willfully ignoring detailed responses to issues brought up before, to my role in all this being completely marginalized because I'm not controversial enough, I'm beginning to wonder what exactly the point is? (That second example was a joke, folks. No sympathy cards or Molotov cocktails, please. )

However, as I believe someone more intelligent than I once said, "their's not to reason why". And so we continue.

First of all, we approach Omega's interpretation of the Constitution, which I have boldly called a bit off in the past, and shall continue to do so here. Assuming for a moment that we ignore Founder intent, which is silly, as that makes up a good portion of any Constitutional case, we still must contend with 200 years of that seperation being held as implicit within the spirit of the document. Often by very religious Judges, I should add. Why? Because it cannot be a one way street. The Constitution of Libya happens to include a very similar statement. The state is forbidden from interfering in the people's right to freely exercise the religion of their choice. Of course, that doesn't prevent religion from taking over the state and turning the whole place into a rather draconian affair, wherein you can worship whatever God you choose so long as his name starts with an A and ends with an llah. (My apologies to any Muslim members of the board, BTW. I don't mean to imply that Islam justifies this sort of thing. Simply that it does indeed occur.)

A quick glance of history shows that whenever the forces of religion are allowed to intermingle with the affairs of the state the effects are usually quite disasterous. Jesus himself warns against this. Even when, or perhaps especially when, the religion being pushed is your own. Take a look at poor Rome. Sure, Christianity preached neighborly love and all that. And hey, wouldn't having a nice guy who believed in that running the place be a good idea? The answer, as learned over a period of a thousand years, is a resounding no.

And now, a few examples of observed speciation:

Evening Primrose
Kew Primrose
Trapopogonan
Raphanobrassica
Hemp Nettle
Madia citrigracilis
Brassica

Just a few. All plants by the way, for the simple reason that change in animals takes longer. (Er, that, and I only looked up the plants. )

Omega then gives an analogy regarding the unlikeliness of chromosomes coming together randomly. I've already posted about this the last time we had this debate, and no one bothered to say anything. I assumed this was because I was believed, but apparently I was simply ignored. Therefore, in the interests of completeness, I shall state it again.

One, evolution is not a random process, and any belief that it is is so off base as to render meaningfull debate on the topic almost impossible. Evolution follows a strict set of natural laws. That's why it's called a science. Two, the analogy is used of the MacOS "coming together at random". First of all, this depends on your opinion of the Mac, but I digress.

Second of all, the assumption is again made that evolution is working from nothing each and everytime. That is not true. Evolution keeps what works and discards what doesn't. Simple. By using that process in an otherwise "random" computer, one can generate the line "tobeornottobe" in something like several seconds. All of Hamlet can be generated in a few days. Not an infinite amount of time.

My turn now to draw up an unwieldy analogy. Let's say that my local school board was run by Holocaust revisionists. So they decide that all reference to the Holocaust should be deleted from the World War II history course. Not on the grounds that they have anything against Jews, mind you. Simply because the class didn't give equal time to those who would claim that the Holocaust was merely a fantasy concocted by the Zionist conspiricy. Is this right? They have the majority, don't they?

Or would we say that a school has some obligation to teach what can be proven and demonstrated, and not bend over to support whatever beliefs are currently in vogue? Calling for equal time for creationism in school is the same as calling for equal time for Holocaust denial in history classes, or hollow earth theories in geology class, or crystal sphere theories in astronomy class.

RW: You're mixing your signals. The Big Bang has nothing to do with biology, but quite a lot to do with cosmology and astronomy. At any rate, there is evidence that undeniably points towards such an event. The universe does not care whether we are comfortable with that thought or not.

What Baloo is talking about is rather blindingly obvious. There is an entire universe of evidence out there indicating that things have been around for quite some time. Now either that evidence has been purposefully designed to trick us, which certainly doesn't match up with the idea of a benevolent God, or that evidence is what it is, and our beliefs must take that fact into account.

And evolution meets up with all the qualifications of a scientific theory. Please explain how it does not.

The rest is just rather typical anti guv'mint stuff, and not really in the scope of this argument. (As I see it, anyway.)

OK, first, my interpretation of the US Constitution. I see the constitution as a contract between the states and the national government. When a territory ratifies the constitution and becomes a state, it effectively says "We will send representatives, pay taxes, and do everything the constitution says we must. We will also agree not to do what the constitution say we can not, such as make a treaty with another nation. If an ammendment is ratified by 2/3 of the states, we agree to accept it as part of this contract, whether we ratified it or not." The US government, which, by its very nature, must hold to the terms of the contract, says "OK, we'll provide for your defence, and all the other things the constitution says we must do, and we won't do anything the constitution tells us not to do." The problem with all these programs I don't like is a clause in this contract saying that the national government has no power not granted it in the constitution. The states agreed to do what the national government said WITHIN THE LIMITS of the constitution, and the US government, by virtue of the tenth ammendment's very existance, agrees to the same thing. Thus the national government should have no power not explicitly granted in the constitution.

I believe all the examples of specitation you gave are hybrids of pre-existing species, correct? That doesn't constitution evolution in my book. No new genetic material, just a recombination of old material into a new pattern.

As for the randomness of chromosome origin, I don't think you understood me. I was refering to the original formation of the first cell. Even if it only had one chromosome, the amount of data stored in that one would still be enormous. There would only be a certain number of DNA patterns that would make the cell a self-sustaining organism (say, 1,000,000,000; probably a gross overestimate, but I'll be nice). There are so many possible permutations of DNA in that one chromosome that the chances of hitting on any one of those billion by any random process are not significantly different from zero.

What do you mean, Evolution isn't random? Something is tried, and if it doesn't work, something else is tried. Sounds random to me.

You're right. Your analogy is unwieldy. The Haulocaust happened. There is physical evidence to back it up. There are pictures. There are survivors still alive today. Evolution has no physical evidence that isn't misinterpreted. There are no witnesses. N concievable test can be performed to show it to be true. My idea for teaching religion in optional classes relates to things that are scientificly unproovable.

"Calling for equal time for creationism in school is the same as calling for equal time for Holocaust denial in history classes, or hollow earth theories in geology class, or crystal sphere theories in astronomy class."

Again, evidence in favor of Holocaust, solid Earth, and Heliocentrism, and against denial, hollow Earth, and crystal sphere. Evolution has no evidence for it, and much evidence against it. Creation has none either way. Neither should be taught as absolute fact.

"At any rate, there is evidence that undeniably points towards such an event [as the big bang]."

Such as? I've heard none that can't be explained as something else.

"What Baloo is talking about is rather blindingly obvious. There is an entire universe of evidence out there indicating that things have been around for quite some time. Now either that evidence has been purposefully designed to trick us, which certainly doesn't match up with the idea of a benevolent God, or that evidence is what it is, and our beliefs must take that fact into account."

How many times do I have to point out that it's possible that the supposed evidence is being misinterpreted, and that you may just be wrong!? This is, what, the third time? Can you just not admit the possibility that what you're being told is WRONG?

"And evolution meets up with all the qualifications of a scientific theory. Please explain how it does not."

I already did. "A good theory would explain everything that can be observed pertaining to it, not just some things. It would also make predictions that can be tested. Evolution does neither of these."

I'm not anti-government. I'm anti-government-expanding-beyond-the-boundries-stated-in-the-constitution.

The words "evolution" and "creation" and Pandora's Boxes around here.

Well Sure Omega that's how the government is supposed to work and let's be honest, yes the federal government is in direct violation of the Constitution. The trouble is the only damaged party (the states) aren't taking there troubles to the Supreme Court, why, I believe the term is "Show me the Money", or the Feds are giving the states tons of money to let them ignore that there rights are being violated. Of course there is the interstate commerce clause with has been bent to some really weird areas to allow the federal government to do what they want (I not say that's bad, I am just saying that that the interstate commerce clause should only cover...interstate commerce, however the one time it was used to make owning a gun illegal with 1000 feet from a school, what the hell does that have to do with interstate commerce [yes I know that law got struck down, thank God] in other areas it has been helpful, but a line must be drawn).
O yes RW is a long time member he's been here...a while.

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos and a d*mn lucky b*st*rd:-) )

------------------
"FOOLS! Will I have to kill them ALL?!?!"

"They're like two positively charged ions!"
--
Milhouse

I'd like to start out with another amusing anecdote, but I'm afraid my mind is preoccupied with thoughts of schoolwork, love, poetry, and other things that would ban me from the city of New York. So, are we doing the five minutes or the full half-hour?

I couldn't help but notice this tidbit pop out at me from the section regarding the Constitution.

"The problem with all these programs I don't like..." (Emphasis mine.)

But the Federal programs you do like, those can spend all the money in the world, eh? Screw the space program, unless it's building Star Wars?

This is, of course, a fundamental problem with the partisan mentality as a whole. No one ever has any real solution. My grandfather will spend hours detailing the horrible liberal plot to destroy private business and turn the nation into the socialist home of the Antichrist. But by God, those drug companies charge too much! There should be a law! True solutions to our problems can only come when we begin to recognize the value of good ideas, regardless of their source.

Furthermore, I am curious as to the source of the presumption that smaller government leads to an increase in personal freedom. It is personal freedom that is our goal, yes? Because states' rights for the sake of states' rights is a silly thing indeed. Please point out some examples of small governments providing more freedom historically. As I've said before, I'll take the independant Federal Marshall over the "old boys' network" Sheriff any day.

"I believe all the examples of specitation you gave are hybrids of pre-existing species, correct? That doesn't constitution evolution in my book. No new genetic material, just a recombination of old material into a new pattern."

First of all, no. Second of all, changing your definitions every ten seconds doesn't exactly make for a very convincing position.

"As for the randomness of chromosome origin, I don't think you understood me. I was refering to the original formation of the first cell."

Well, that's the problem, then. What exactly are you getting this from? Where does the idea that the structure of a chromosome sprang whole from Zeus' thigh come from? Again, you aren't actually bothering to address what evolution really says. Merely what you want it to say in order to advance your own position.

I'm afraid my Holocaust analogy is perfectly accurate. There is plenty of evidence confirming it, yes. However, Holocaust deniers construct arcane methods to deny every bit of it. Gas traces in the ground? False readings. Eyewitness accounts? Poorly remembered wartime events. Does this pattern sound at all familiar to you?

"How many times do I have to point out that it's possible that the supposed evidence is being misinterpreted, and that you may just be wrong!? This is, what, the third time? Can you just not admit the possibility that what you're being told is WRONG?"

Could you perhaps calm down? First of all, I would burst out laughing if I didn't break down crying first. I'm saying that multiple independant studies all indicate that life has evolved from more primitive ancestors. You're saying that a magical book told you that everything appeared in a week a few years before the foundation of Egyptian civilization. And I'm the one who cannot admit that I might be wrong? Science is based on the principle that things can be disproved. I have over the course of this argument had to conceed several points, almost always due to mistakes I made while researching. You, on the other hand, simply ignore things, or change the nature of the subject.

Your argument against evolution seems to boil down to three or four basic points.

1.) Evolution offends your religious beliefs: For this, I am deeply and honestly sorry. But some things don't go away when you stop believing in them. Darwin should present no more of a threat to your beliefs than Copernicus.

2.) There were no witnesses, hence nothing can be determined: Clearly wrong, given just a basic understanding of how science works. It's called interpolation and extrapolation. Remarkably useful tools. It's how Newton could say beyond a reasonable doubt that gravity effects the moon in the same way it does an apple, even though he had never been to the moon and had no way of observing its motion completely. If you honestly want to judge science in this way, you must cast ALL of it out. Every textbook, every theory...everything. Because the very nature of science demands that nothing can be known for certain. It can merely be confirmed to the point where to withhold agreement would be foolish based on the evidence.

3.) Every bit of evidence ever produced in favor of evolution is a lie: I'm tempted to trot out Mr. Sagan's famous quote regarding extraordinary claims. Not one scientist believes in God? Not one scientist is antagonistic enough to his fellows to want to find holes in their theory?

I think an honest examination of evolutionary theory clearly shows that it has been hotly debated by the scientific community since its introduction. Scientists still don't agree on all of the mechanisms. But the fact that it does indeed happen is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt by uncountable numbers of independant inquiries.

Oh, and your definition of a theory is only partially correct. Classical mechanics cannot explain the actions of every object in the universe. Does this mean Newton was in on some bizarre calculus conspiricy? No. It simply means that over time our understanding has grown to include things the original theory could not. Classical mechanics works for the everyday universe. Relativity works for things traveling very fast, and for the rest of the of the macroscopic universe. Quantum mechanics works for the microscopic universe. Someday quantum gravity will likely tie all those together. Does that mean that our old equation of F=MA is false? Of course not. It simply doesn't hold true for every possibility.

Is evolutionary theory the be all and end all on the subject? No. It seems very likely that our understanding will continue to grow on this topic here too. But the fundamentals stay the same.

------------------
"Quadrilateral I was, now I warp like a smile."
--
Soul Coughing

(Holy HTML, Batman!)

I'll have to remember this one. I like it.

"But the Federal programs you do like, those can spend all the money in the world, eh? Screw the space program, unless it's building Star Wars?"

Point taken. I probably should have said "that I have a problem with." And you're right. I've never thought about even NASA not being provided for. Thus, to stay consistant, NASA shouldn't exist. You could probably find a loophole somewhere by placing NASA under indirect military control, and thus part of the national defence clause? I believe that is how it started. Or maybe, just maybe, if people want congress to do all these things that the constitution doesn't say that say they can do or create, they can pass an ammendment saying that the federal government can, in fact, do these things. I doubt many people would be opposed to an ammendment allowing for interstates, so it wouldn't be too much trouble to pass.

"Furthermore, I am curious as to the source of the presumption that smaller government leads to an
increase in personal freedom."

Simple. Less government programs, less government regulations for those programs, more freedom. Another idea of mine: Say welfare shut down on a national level and was picked up by most of the states. (I'm assuming that there would be one or two that didn't like welfare for some reason.) Each state would probably have different programs. If one state's failed, that state could try a program that another state is using. Eventually, all the states would end up using the best possible welfare system found for their own well-being. As it is, you've only got one governing body, and one country to try things in. One petri dish and sceintist instead of fifty pairs.

"Please point out some examples of small governments
providing more freedom historically."

Early US, maybe? Basically, the idea is that big governments that control everything are invariably opressive. Thus smaller government.

"First of all, no[, they weren't all hybrids]."

Ah. So can you describe the ones that weren't, please?

"Second of all, changing your definitions every ten seconds doesn't exactly make for a very convincing position."

Evolution can refer to many different things. You've pointed out one definition, I've used at least two others. I don't consider the combination of two existing species into a third Evolution because the two original species could reproduce to begin with, and would thus have to be scientifically classified as the same species.

"Where does the idea that the structure of a chromosome sprang whole from Zeus' thigh come from?"

Because I've never heard anyone give any better ideas, including you. What other possible explination could there be, by your theory? The only one I can think of is that billions and trillions of cells were, in fact, formed, but that only one or two had the proper DNA sequence to stay alive. Only that could offset the improbability of hitting the right combination. The problem here is that no one has any idea under what circumstances a single cell could form by itself, much less trillions of them.

"I'm afraid my Holocaust analogy is perfectly accurate. There is plenty of evidence confirming it, yes. However, Holocaust deniers construct arcane methods to deny every bit of it. Gas traces in the ground? False readings. Eyewitness accounts? Poorly remembered wartime events. Does this pattern sound at all familiar to you?"

Yes, actually. Do these people have a website? I'd like to actually look at their supposed evidence, and then decide. But first, assuming that they are, in fact, wrong, the problem here is that I could easily use the same analogy relating to you. They're trying to proove something, and when presented with evidence that their methods are flawed, they ignore it and keep going. So, yeah, I'd say it does sound familiar.

"Could you perhaps calm down?"

Sorry. My dad's got something like 40% hearing, and my brother is deaf in one ear (on top of being somewhat learning-impaired and responding to anything anyone says to him with "huh", or "wha?"), so I have to repeat things alot around here. Get's kind of annoying. Of course, if my dad didn't have bad hearing, he probably would have been sent to Vietnam and shot, and if my brother hadn't caught meningitis when he was two, I probably never have been born, so I guess I should count my blessings. Again, my apologies.

"I'm saying that multiple independant studies all indicate that life has evolved from more primitive ancestors."

Not all. I'm saying that multiple independant studies indicate that life did NOT evolve from more primitive ancestors. The only reason you accept the ones that say "Evolution" is because that's what you personally believe. Same with me. No one can be said to be objective. I, though, listen to the evidence and do my best to refute yours. Quite a bit of mine has been ignored. In the end, what our previous argument boiled down to was the fact that all the evidence you had was Archaeopteryx, which has been irrefutably shown to be false, and the skeletons from China, of which I know nothing, and thus can't say what they are. Tell me: what dating method was used to determine the age of archaeopteryx?

As for your points:

"1) Evolution offends your religious beliefs"

No. The teaching of Evolution as absolute fact in schools with no mention of other theories offends my sense of reason. You can believe what you want without affecting me, just don't try to shove it off on someone elses kids.

"2) There were no witnesses, hence nothing can be determined"

Ah, no. Nothing can be PROOVEN. Newton could assume that Earth's gravity affected the moon, and his assumption would have been logical and rational based on what he knew. If, however, there was something he didn't know or didn't take into account, he would have assumed something to be true, when it was in fact false. The only way to proove something outside mathematics is to see and measure it for yourself, and even then, your instruments can be out of calibration, your test-tubes could be dirty, or any number of other things. There's no way to truely PROOVE anything scientifically.

"3.) Every bit of evidence ever produced in favor of evolution is a lie"

Again, I've never said that. In fact, that's what I was ranting about in my last post. I've said that every bit of evidence ever produced in favor of evolution is being misinterpreted.

"Classical mechanics cannot explain the actions of every object in the universe. Does this mean Newton was in on some bizarre calculus conspiricy?"

What is it with you, anyway? Just because he didn't take something into account doesn't mean that he was part of a huge conspiracy. He just didn't know about what he wasn't taking into account. You say that if all evidence in favor of Evolution is misinterpreted, then there must be a huge conspiracy. It's possible that the evidence is simply being misinterpreted because people don't like to admit that they're wrong, and some will accept anything they're told if it lets them keep their theory. Even scientists can be wrong now and again, you know.

"Is evolutionary theory the be all and end all on the subject? No. It seems very likely that our understanding will continue to grow on this topic here too. But the fundamentals stay the same."

But even the fundamentals don't explain everything pertaning to them. My theory (spontaneous creation, decreasing c, hydroplate, flood, liquefication, etc.) does. It fits the evidence, and it makes predictions that can be tested. Yours does neither.